At 11:09 AM -0800 11/28/1997, Michael B. Brown wrote:

>So, what does Tweeterland think it takes to be a naturalist?

Back in Illinois, at college, I had the privilege of studying with the late
Paul Shepard, who recruited people to become naturalists, defined simply as
those devoted to nature study, which he defined as an "attitude" rather
than a profession. The other day I came across a copy of a document he
used to hand out in his classes, entitled "Notes on the study of natural
history and conservation at Knox College," prepared by Paul in February
1956. Here is an excerpt of what he wrote:

"What is a Naturalist or a Conservationist?

"While there are a few professional opportunities as 'naturalist', most
naturalists are either employed outside the sciences or are professionally
specialized in the sciences and vocationally occupied in more conventional
and specific fields.

"The naturalist, although a specialist in some field, is interested in
nature as a whole. He is traditionally self-reliant in the outdoors and to
some extent familiar with and curious about all aspects of nature. By
virtue of his broad interest he is particularly qualified to interpret the
interrelationships and the integrations of living things, is adept at
systematics and the identification of plants and animals, and acquainted
with the literature and philosophy of nature study. The naturalist may be
considered to be both intellectually and emotionally attuned to the
perception of nature as a whole.

"The conservationist shares with the naturalist a degree of professional
anonymity. Because of the many problems of motivation and value that
influence man's use of nature, the conservationist may be banker, teacher,
engineer, or scientist. Because of insight into the patterns of living
things the biologist can contribute much to conservation, and the
naturalist, with a catholic interest in outdoor nature, is particularly
valuable in helping others to understand and think in terms of
conservation. In general, the conservationist strives to promote harmony
between man and nature by urging the recognition of natural laws and
processes at a policy level. He works at a maze of bio-sociological
problems. As in the case of the naturalist, it is important to recognize
that there are very few professional opportunities which are called
'conservationist' but an unlimited opportunity for people of many vocations
to participate."

This still seems like a pretty good statement to me (allowance made for the
then-proper usage of the masculine personal pronoun covering both sexes:
there were plenty of women naturalists and conservationists back then, many
of the best of them trained by Paul). What do y'all think?

Hal Opperman